Edward Jones, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 30, 2015
• Docket: 15A01-1506-CR-623
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Dec 30 2015, 7:07 am this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Leanna Weissmann Gregory F. Zoeller Lawrenceburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Richard C. Webster Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Edward Jones, Jr., December 30, 2015 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 15A01-1506-CR-623 v. Appeal from the Dearborn Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Sally A. Appellee-Plaintiff McLaughlin, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 15D02-1212-FC-263

Baker, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1506-CR-623 | December 30, 2015 Page 1 of 4 [1] Edward Jones appeals the judgment of the trial court ordering him to serve four

years of his previously suspended sentence following his second probation

violation. Finding no error, we affirm.

Facts [2] On August 19, 2013, Jones pleaded guilty to two counts of class C felony

intimidation with a deadly weapon and several class C misdemeanors—hunting

without the consent of the landowner, illegal possession/taking of white tail

deer, illegal possession/taking of river otter, hunting deer with illegal devices,

and a taxidermist violation. The trial court sentenced Jones to consecutive

terms of eight and two years for the intimidation convictions and to 60-day

terms for each misdemeanor conviction, to be served concurrently to each other

and to the intimidation terms. This resulted in a total sentence of ten years, of

which the trial court ordered Jones to serve two years incarcerated and eight

years under supervised probation.

[3] On December 12, 2013, the trial court ordered Jones to serve 180 days of his

previously suspended sentence after he admitted to violating the terms of his

probation. On March 31, 2015, the trial court found that Jones had violated

the terms of his probation a second time after Jones admitted to stealing

hunting equipment and hunting illegally. As a result, on May 20, 2015, the trial

court ordered him to serve an additional four years of his previously suspended

sentence. Jones now appeals.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1506-CR-623 | December 30, 2015 Page 2 of 4 Discussion and Decision [4] Probation is not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled, but rather a

matter of grace left to the discretion of the trial court. Prewitt v. State, 878

N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). The trial court has discretion to determine the

conditions of probation and to revoke probation if those conditions are violated.

Id. “If this discretion were not afforded to trial courts and sentences were

scrutinized too severely on appeal, trial judges might be less inclined to order

probation to future defendants.” Id. Accordingly, we review a trial court’s

decision to revoke probation only for an abuse of discretion. Id.

[5] Here, the trial court found that Jones suffers from Huntington’s disease. Jones

argues that the trial court’s decision to revoke four years of his probation “was

not necessary to bring about his reform” in light of this circumstance.

Appellant’s Br. p. 10. While taking Jones’s disease into account, the trial court

nevertheless determined that other circumstances counseled in favor of revoking

four years of his probation.

[6] The trial court first noted that Jones has shown a persistent disregard for the

terms of his probation, as this is his second violation. Furthermore, the trial

court found these new violations to be particularly serious, in that they were

new criminal offenses, similar in nature to Jones’s initial criminal offenses, that

represent a continuation of his original criminal conduct. The trial court also

took into account Jones’s long list of prior convictions, many of which relate to

hunting. Finally, the trial acknowledged Jones’s diagnosis, but noted that the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1506-CR-623 | December 30, 2015 Page 3 of 4 disease was not so debilitating as to inhibit him from committing the new

crimes.

[7] At the hearing, Jones introduced a medical research paper that suggests that

sufferers of diseases such as Huntington’s are more likely to commit crimes

such as theft. Appellant’s App. p. 278. We acknowledge that a trial court

would be acting well within its discretion to take such evidence into

consideration in a probation revocation proceeding. However, while we

assume the research paper accurately characterizes those who suffer from such

diseases generally, we note that there is no evidence in the record that indicates

to what extent Jones’s disease had progressed when he committed the

violations at issue here, or that the violations came as a result of the disease.

See id. at 226-38. Finally, we note that the trial court opted not to impose the

maximum sanction in this case, affording Jones some lenience by leaving a

large portion of his initial sentence suspended to probation. We cannot say that

the trial court abused its discretion under these circumstances.

[8] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Bradford, J., and Pyle, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1506-CR-623 | December 30, 2015 Page 4 of 4